Facebook Re-Opens The Door To Videos Featuring Beheadings; Breasts? Not So Much

from the no-joke dept

Perhaps like me, while you read all of our posts the past six months that had anything to do with Facebook, you missed the news that the social media site had instituted a policy specifically against sharing videos that featured human beings beheading other human beings. Granted, like for me, this may have fallen under your "I can't believe we need that, but okay" category, but indulge me for a moment as I ride the rollercoaster of oscilating views on the news that Facebook has recently rescinded this policy and will once again allow videos of beheadings to be shared, with only a few caveats.

The social network had introduced a temporary ban in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. The US firm confirmed it now believed its users should be free to watch and condemn such videos. It added it was, however, considering adding warnings.

Reaction Stage 1: Emotional Outrage -- You evil Facebook bastards! How simple is it to understand that you shouldn't allow people to show decapa-frigging-tations. The very idea of large swaths of people watching that kind of thing is sickening. And to hell with your caveats; there is no discussion worth having about vile acts of violence and death beyond the complete rebuke of them. What good could this possibly serve?

"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events," said a spokeswoman.

Reaction Stage 2: The Skeptical Deep Breath -- Okay, fine, that's a fair point. If social media sites are the water-cooler or social chamber of our time, then it makes sense that those discussions should be open to topics of controversey. After all, how do you discuss a beheading if you don't at least have the option to see what occurred. Still, this all sounds too close to people watching snuff films. Surely someone is going to have a problem with all this, right?

"It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace - particularly in a young person's mind," said Dr Arthur Cassidy, a former psychologist who runs a branch of the Yellow Ribbon Program in Northern Ireland. "The more graphic and colourful the material is, the more psychologically destructive it becomes."

Facebook allows anyone aged 13 and above to be a member.

Reaction Stage 3: Think Of The Damned Children -- Screw the fair points. How the hell could this possibly be deemed responsible when Facebook allows newly-proclaimed teenagers to view this kind of material? Nobody is really in favor of teens watching people get their melons chopped off, are they? And is anyone really going to argue that there won't be some damage to some children if this kind of thing is allowed to propagate? What's supposed to keep kids from seeing this kind of violence?

The idea of Facebook issuing a blanket ban had, however, concerned some freedom-of-speech campaigners who had suggested it was the responsibility of parents - not the company - to protect children on the internet.

Reaction Stage 4: Oh, Yeah, The Stupid Parents -- Damn, I had forgotten about them. I guess it is up to parents to police their children's internet use and any unwillingness to do so shouldn't stifle the free speech of others. It's just that, well, so many parents suck at this part of their job. Still, that isn't the fault of people who are legitimately interested in these kinds of stories.

French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net said it was still concerned that Facebook was reserving the right to take down the videos if it took issue with the way they were presented.

"It shows how much Facebook is in power to decide whatever will or will not be expressed through its network," said the organisation's co-founder Jeremie Zimmermann. "It plays a profoundly anti-democratic role when it makes any such choice, whatever the limits are and whatever the good reasons it uses to make the decision. Only a judicial authority should be able to restrict fundamental freedoms according to the rule of law."

Reaction Stage 5: Reluctant Admission That Horrible Things Are The Reason Free Expression Is Important -- Yes, beheadings are terrible. As are violent attacks, terrorist attacks, bombings, war-crimes, and every other horrible action that we human beings commit against one another. But that is the reality of the world we live in. And if I'm confident about anything at all in this occasionally horrible world, it's that reacting to horror by placing your head in the sand doesn't work. There are those on this planet that believe in civil discourse, in peace, and in the possibility of harmony with our fellow human beings, and we deserve to know exactly how terrible the enemies of our cause are and to discuss their actions openly and honestly. A huge part of that means being able to see what we're dealing with. As I mentioned before, social media sites are our gathering places to discuss ideas, philosophies, and events. To stifle any part of that because the material at hand is uncomfortable to some would be a disservice. I don't even need to give examples of prior acts of violence that, thanks to their being on film, opened a larger number of people's eyes to important dangers than would have been otherwise.

In the end, I come back to the resting place that seems so familiar to me: more discussion, more access to information, more freedom of speech is always better in the end. Of course, now having ridden this roller coaster ride up and down the emotions, there is one other issue. How is it that beheadings are considered important to free speech, but breasts are such a problem that even breastfeeding is (at times) banned?

Where did your rollercoaster take you?

Update: Oh, and just as we post this, it comes out that Facebook has removed a beheading video. The roller coaster ride begins again.

You know, there are ways of reporting any video. If it is somewhat uncomfortable just put a warn before the person can watch/see the content alerting that it may be disturbing or pornographic and move on. No need to remove it unless there's some court order.

Because you can see boobs everywhere online if you want.Good quality beheading videos need a massive cdn to make sure they meet the consumers desire for HD detail.It gets more eyes on and in facebook, and the money flows.

Imagine a world where the next parent to scream about their child seeing something horrible then gets arrested for failing to be a parent. Parents might start parenting again.

Oh, the moral outrage

My devices have off switches. If I don't like what I'm looking at or listening to, then I have the option to NOT consume.

I've seen exactly one beheading online. I watched it, found it distasteful and never looked for one again. I've never encountered one on Facebook, nor looked for one there. If I ever do get a beheading in my feed, I know how to delete it.

Limiting a person's options does not change the nature of a person. People who like to watch horrible things will still continue to do so.

This news took me to bestgore where I saw all those beheadings and deaths everywhere, the comments disturbed me more than the images because some of them in the case of the Mexican woman that was beheaded, supposedly for cheating, was calling for raping her first until someone came down on the sick fucks telling them to have some respect for someone who was a mother and daughter of someone's else.

That little trip into the dark corners of the internet reminded me of something that sometimes I forget, the feeling that real horrible people brings me, and put in perspective my own troubles, which are nothing compared to the horrors others are facing everyday elsewhere.

With that said, although shocking and horrible, it is still our world and we shouldn't try to hide the warts in it.

This is one time where my faith in humanity is diminished but somehow I still find a lot of good out there, and that hope is what keeps me going, the hope that despite all the shocking ugly things life can show it to you, you can somehow always find good anywhere if you just look/work for it.

What ever happened to "aiding and abetting" and how does this not fall under that heading ... opps slight pun.

Boobs are not illegal, last time I checked, but murder certainly is - torture also. I realize the act (hopefully) occurs outside the border, but promoting the actors is still a crime - right? One is not allowed to assist these animals, right?

Why has anyone moved beyond Stage 1?

Reaction Stage 1: Emotional Outrage -- You evil Facebook bastards

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at HarvardZuck: Just askZuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?Zuck: People just submitted it.Zuck: I don't know why.Zuck: They "trust me"Zuck: Dumb fucks

Re:

Promoting the actors is neither aiding nor abetting the actual act. It shouldn't be, either. People have the right to make whatever statements they wish to make. I don't agree with them, but that is their right and I won't let you take it from them.

do you think you have to watch something like that before you can understand how vile and disgusting an act like that is ?

that somehow just hearing about it is not enough for you, you have to watch it in detail. This is SICK.

Is this "free speech" ?? No FUCKING WAY !!!, only sick, perverted, brain dead fucks would get their 'jollies' from watching one human commit an atrocity to another, and only SICKER Fucks would call it "free speech" and claim some sick perverted 'right' to view it.

Do I think it would have profound effects on young people !!!! OF COURSE IT DOES, only the sick, perverted fucks would think otherwise.

Anyone who uses "decapitation" and free speech in the same breath, is an equally sick fuck. It's not free speech, and anyone who thinks it is, (including facebook) should be removed from society.

would someone like to explain to us how decapitation is 'free speech' please ?

Re: Re:

Roller Coaster

Reaction 1: Free speech.

Reaction 2: Facebook can censor what they will on their own site, just so long as they are not being compelled to do so. If you don't like it, you are free to help send Facebook the way of the dodo bird.

Note how reaction 1 is rolled into reaction 2? There is no reaction 3.

Re: Re: Re:

If the statement is "we like this guy that decapitates people," they are free to make that statement so long as they don't break any laws to do so. Outlawing the promotion of something someone likes is directly outlawing a statement. Outlawing one possible expression of a statement is not.

Decapitation is an act, not a statement. It could be used to make a strong statement against some other act, but it has been determined to be illegal because it infringes on the rights of the person who was decapitated more so than the act being illegal infringes on the rights of those who would desire to perform the act.

Re: Oh, the moral outrage

"My devices have off switches. If I don't like what I'm looking at or listening to"

so is it not TOO LATE, if you have seem it before you can decide if you don't like what you are looking at ?

Do you feel, that "if you like" something, you have a right to do it, I am sure some people "like" to decapitate other people as well, do they have a right to do it because "they like to do it" ????

Limiting a persons options, DOES change the nature of a person, because "its in your nature" to do something does not make that action "right" or give you a right to take that action.

I wonder if you would still think that way if it was a video of my mom or daughter being decapitated, would it be at all possible that may bring out some human empathy in you ?

I am really trying hard to think of what someone would 'gain' from watching something like that ??

Can someone help me here please ?There must be ALOT of real sickos out there, have they all come to TD?

I wonder if those "who like to watch horrible things" would like to be in the position of the person being killed by these sick fucks ?? Is it possible they would enjoy shitting themselves and pissing their pants and crying like a baby just before they are murdered by some psycho's ?

Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage

DAMN!!!!!

Seriously i am pissed off with this whole thing, i dont care about anyone's freedom to watch what they want, if that was allowed then facebook would not block content that paedophiles get the rock of on, seriously this is just another sign of how depraved some people are and is not something that needs to be on facebook at all, i dont care about free speech, if free speech was so all encompassing it would cover any videos that depict anything even child abuse, but they dont.

And this shit about parents monitoring their child on-line habits, damn if anyone expects a parent to sit next to a 13 year old and watch everything they do while their is cleaning and cooking and other things to do then you are insane. Parents can do everything they have the power to do to prevent their kids from seeing this stuff but if it is out there it is possible for them to gain access, damn just a few licks and they would have access.

I dont care for the argument about free speech as there is content that has been blocked ignore freedom of speech laws in the US. Get this filth off the site remove it and prevent anyone who posts it from ever posting again.

I have three kids and i do everything i can to stop them seeing content that is not appropriate , but i cannot monitor them 100% of the time, so i expect places like facebook to have a system in place that 13 year olds cannot bypass by just signing up for a new account.

Re: Re:

yes, I guess my mind is made up when it comes to decapitating people, and the sick fucks who want to talk about "free speech' in the same context with decapitation.

Excuse me !!!

But the abuse of human rights is bad enough, but to abuse "Free speech" and devalue it to the point that you feel an atrocity should be considered "free speech' you do a huge disservice to human rights and free speech.

And show us just how sick and perverted you are, how dare you degrade free speech like this ??

Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage

Sometimes I wonder who is the children, the parents or the kids.

Here is a real life example of how it is done.

The Amish people have their own rules and live surrounded by inequity, despite all of this they find ways to raise their children according to their beliefs without having to force others to adapt to it, why those backwards people can do it and supposedly modern intelligent people cannot?

When your children do things you don't like constantly, the problem is not others is you? you are doing something wrong, your children are getting angry and misguided and you need help to change course, this crap takes decades to correct do not let for tomorrow, you are already late.

The good families I see through the years are the ones where parents don't punish without cause, they explain over and over with arguments that make sense and they too abide by the same rules, leading by example, communication doesn't happen just verbally with have five senses they all communicate something.

Re: Re: Re:

"And yet, human history is filled with human VS human decapitation as punishment."

Notice "HUMAN VS HUMAN", how many cases of Animal vs Human decapitation have you heard about.

What, because people did it in the past that makes it ok to do it in the present, or to do it in the future ?

I don't see what point you are trying to make sorry. But if your point is 'we have always done it, so its ok to do it now' I don't agree, if you point is something else, well you might have to explain it a bit better. sorry

Re: Re:

"And what is your opinion on the legality on how various Afghani's end up dead from explosions via drones?"

I don't know, but I do know it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech", are you trying to so that if one form of killing is acceptable, then all forms of killing are equally acceptable, and the method and motives are irrelevant ?

Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!

A theatre could not legally show a decapitation move to a 13 year old.

So you claim. Got caselaw to back that claim up?

As the CEO of Facebook once said:Zuck: They "trust me"Zuck: Dumb fucks

The CEO of Facebook is calling you a "dumb fuck" for 'trusting him'. The 'grrrr Facebook' Grrring seems to be about trust, that somehow people don't understand that trusting Facebook is why the CEO would consider you a "Dumb Fuck".

Re: DAMN!!!!!

Teach your kid what is and is not appropriate behavior for them. They can't even access many sites if they are under the age of thirteen. Sure, they can lie about their age, but you did teach them not to lie, right?

By the age of thirteen, someone should be capable of thinking about whether they really want to see something that gruesome. Chances are your kid wants to watch it, and they'll find a way to do so. Facebook can't stop someone from posting: "Hey, google x and click on the link titled y." If your kid wants to watch something, blocking the video on Facebook isn't going to stop them.

Don't give your kids their own computer until they've grown up enough to have one. Hide the internet explorer icon somewhere they are unlikely to find it (or don't connect them to the internet or remove all browsers from the computer or restrict their account from accessing the internet). If you really don't trust them once they are online, use the browser history to track their activity.

But know this, if your kid wants information you are trying to prevent them from accessing, they'll get it and you'll probably never know. Even if they have to sneak into a library and browse the adult fiction books, they'll find it. You don't have perfect control, you can't expect perfect control. You need to teach your kids to protect themselves and make sense of things for themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, it doesn't feel sufficient guilt to need to justify its actions. Nor does the lion feel any guilt about ripping the guts out of the gazelle. Of course, the alpha wolf will certainly take action to instill terror within any beta wolf thinking about taking over the pack.

The act of decapitation is not "free speech," the posting of said video on Zuckersucker is, as is the glorifying of such action. Why is it so hard for you to see the difference?

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

I'm surprised they don't use the system used quite commonly on the internet which is verifying via birthdate. Stuff should get flagged for being "disturbing or pornographic" as we have a rating system for that material. The problem is in practice with the sheer number of videos....

Facebook did the right thing.

Our freedoms have to apply 100% of the time even if the act is fucked up. We don't have to like it, we don't have to watch it, and I doubt kids are going to be lining up to watch something so fucked up.

"You don't get it, Facebook is not just where adult are, but also young people, who might not have the experience that goes "Nope!" when seeing someone posting something."

Have you tried hitting them? Works wonders! orHave you tried cutting their heads off? Works wonders!/S /S Err... 1200 FBI agents are at my door with a freaking tank! :(

Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, the moral outrage

Never saw anywhere the poster said "stupid"In fact their being a bit "backwards" is the fundamental reason that they are able to do things this way while "modern" parents fail. They live in a society where they still communicate with their children and share common bonds.Its pathetic of you to challenge that statement. I live in Pennsylvania and know some Amish families. THEY consider themselves "backward" and are proud of the fact.

Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!

Re:

"do you think you have to watch something like that before you can understand how vile and disgusting an act like that is ?"

Interesting question and here's my answer. In the year 2000 (cue music), did the western world have a general idea of the threat of Islamic terrorism? Did they know that terrorists blew up civilian targets, killing hundreds or thousands? Did they know that fundamentalists were hell-bent on killing anyone who didn't ascribe to their religion?

Sure, they knew all of those things, somewhere in the back of their mind. So why did they suddenly begin taking the threat seriously only a year later? Because the videos of 9/11 planes slamming into towers were shown again. And again. And again. And again. They were far more powerful than any text describing 3000 dead.

THAT'S the point. If those images were kept from people, the reaction wouldn't have been the same. Sure, there would have been A reaction, but not THE reaction we got. That's important. Threats are to be spotlighted, not hidden from view, or you risk the world not taking the threat seriously....

Re: Re: Re:

If you help someone out by giving them directions, should you be liable for aiding and abetting their theft of the car they are driving? Any aid they are receiving from the viewers is not directly helping them carry out the crime or find shelter from police action and therefore does not qualify as aiding or abetting the illegal act.

Re:

Showing a decapitation is not necessarily promoting it. It might be decrying or simply reporting it, using it for shock (common enough) or pleasure (which repels us).

Or it might have no message or mixed messages.

Advocating decapitation would be illegal if is specific enough, for example if it calling for the decapitation of a specific person or if it is in a hot situation like inflaming a physical crowd to do this action.

But if it's even something as atrocious as advocating it in general against an ethnic group, without immediare danger, it might easily be protected by free speech (in the US).

And if it's something indirect like advocating the legalization of decapitation, say as a form of death penalty, while simultaneous expanding the illegalization of certain other things, like apostasy or adultery, that would be pretty awful but totally covered by free speech. Nothing illegal is being promoted, only a change in law.

Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!

Even if they have to sneak into a library and browse the adult fiction books, they'll find it.

What a difference, though, between those slow-moving days and today. Sneaking into the adult section was pretty difficult and your chances of nabbing more than one fairly mild "adult" book was small. The internet is literally 1000 times more potent !!

Re:

> What ever happened to "aiding and abetting"> and how does this not fall under that heading

Merely showing a factual account of an actual event is not aiding and abetting the crime.

If it was, how do you think the news gets away with showing videos of crimes every day? If that was a crime, everything from the security cam video of a gas station stick-up to the footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11 would end up with some news producer charged and jailed.

Sorry, but you are trying to simplify the issue to the point of absurdity. All the social sites as well as search sites are censored to some degree. To argue that children should be exposed to any and all material is just wrongheaded. Of course we control what children should and should not be exposed to. Every type of media, from film to music has some sort of controls in place to limit the types of material children are exposed to. To argue that facebook should somehow be totally uncensored, is just disingenuous. The question isn't whether to censor what children are exposed to, but how much to censor. I admit that it is absurd to censor any type of breast pics, and allow grotesque violence like a beheading, but to argue that we should not limit what children are exposed to is just ridiculous. And BTW, I'm a card carrying ACLU member. This issue has nothing to do with free speech. People need to educate themselves on what free speech really means. Free speech is the gov't stepping to to limit or control the expression of people. Facebook is totally free to control what happens on their site. As is techdirt.

Re: Murder porn vs porn porn

"It shows how much Facebook is in power to decide whatever will or will not be expressed through its network," said the organisation's co-founder Jeremie Zimmermann. "It plays a profoundly anti-democratic role when it makes any such choice, whatever the limits are and whatever the good reasons it uses to make the decision. Only a judicial authority should be able to restrict fundamental freedoms according to the rule of law."

Re: Re: Re: Re: DAMN!!!!!

1) FUD, fear of the unknown.2) Weakly establishes correlation if valid, no causation established, selection of source studies somewhat dubious, source studies somewhat dubious in their own right do to low sample size (according to the study itself). Also, only applies to cellphones.3) Anecdotal argument from authority, logically fallacious.